An essential premise of this blog is that leadership does not need to include fist-pumping tirades, clipboard smashing halftime speeches, or shout in your face style of motivation. In fact, 21st century leadership should be based on authenticity, maturity, vision, learning and, in general, being nice.
I have written previously about the benefits of nice. Stronger community and effective collaboration are based on simple acts like gratitude and trust. We want to associate with nice people and communities built on niceness feel better suited for collaboration.
Some leaders might say that leadership and nice are incompatible. Nice is the Rodney Dangerfield element of leadership. The authors of the book, The Power of Nice: How to Conquer the Business World With Kindness
state the perception very clearly when they write:
In the study, the Prisoner's Dilemma was posed between participants. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the game theory situation that forces a choice between cooperating or betraying another player. Think of any episode of "Law and Order" on television where police detectives pit one suspect against another suspect to gain a confession or incrimination.
The Harvard study, added financial incentives or disincentives for every choice, whether, cooperation or punishment. The study's results showed a negative correlation between punishment and high payoff. This is summarized with the notion that nice and cooperation pays and winners don't punish. The research document found in Nature states, "winners do not use costly punishment, whereas losers punish and perish"
I have a tendency to respond, "So, what's new?" This is not new information. As the wise say, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Nevertheless, the research provides useful validation and public attention. The Associated Press news release on the research was titled, "It Pays To Play Nice." Check out how many news sources picked up the story with this Google search.
Thanks for reading. Please lead quietly and be nice.
Don
I have written previously about the benefits of nice. Stronger community and effective collaboration are based on simple acts like gratitude and trust. We want to associate with nice people and communities built on niceness feel better suited for collaboration.
Some leaders might say that leadership and nice are incompatible. Nice is the Rodney Dangerfield element of leadership. The authors of the book, The Power of Nice: How to Conquer the Business World With Kindness
state the perception very clearly when they write:..nice has an image problem. Nice gets no respect. To be labeled “nice” usually means the other person has little else positive to say about you. To be nice is to be considered Pollyanna and passive, wimpy, and Milquetoast. Let us be clear: Nice is not naive. Nice does not mean smiling blandly while others walk all over you. Nice does not mean being a doormat. In fact, we would argue that nice is the toughest four-letter word you’ll ever hear. It means moving forward with the clear-eyed confidence that comes from knowing that being very nice and placing other people’s needs on the same level as your own will get you everything you want.My recent exploration on leadership and collaboration led me to a recent study conducted at Harvard University on the power of nice or, more specifically, the incentive value of cooperation. A post last week at the Freakonomics blog brought the research to my attention.
In the study, the Prisoner's Dilemma was posed between participants. The Prisoner's Dilemma is the game theory situation that forces a choice between cooperating or betraying another player. Think of any episode of "Law and Order" on television where police detectives pit one suspect against another suspect to gain a confession or incrimination.
The Harvard study, added financial incentives or disincentives for every choice, whether, cooperation or punishment. The study's results showed a negative correlation between punishment and high payoff. This is summarized with the notion that nice and cooperation pays and winners don't punish. The research document found in Nature states, "winners do not use costly punishment, whereas losers punish and perish"
I have a tendency to respond, "So, what's new?" This is not new information. As the wise say, "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Nevertheless, the research provides useful validation and public attention. The Associated Press news release on the research was titled, "It Pays To Play Nice." Check out how many news sources picked up the story with this Google search.
Thanks for reading. Please lead quietly and be nice.
Don
4 comments:
Don,
I agree with the message of this blog. Still, exemplifying quiet leadership can be an uphill battle in environments where "loud leaders" dominate. They may not last long within a company, but then "nice" players still have the battle of building a circle of influence -- despite our successes -- because of continual turnover within management. (ie., my past achievements, or those of my teams, cannot be recognized by a continual stream of new players just walking in the door). This past frustration has been on my mind because I'm considering a return to the corporate world, but I want to push past this very trap. Can you shed any light on how a quiet leader might overcome this obstacle?
Brenda,
Thanks for your comment.
I empathize with the situation you describe. It's not easy. Despite your good efforts to lead, build great teams, and solve problems, you find that your work is unrecognized. It forces one to ask the question, "What do I want?"
If the recognition and the accompanying opportunities to "get ahead" are important to you, you probably need to find an opportunity that offers that matches your need. A manager who is a great mentor and cares for your development makes all of the difference.
What if you don't have this situation? Then you have to adjust. Perhaps find a new situation or, adjust your expectations. For myself, I get great gratification from celebrating team success. However, if you are trying to "get ahead" you would have to be more patient.
Please continue this discussion and let's invite other readers to offer suggestions. I think a future post on "How does a quiet leader succeed in a "good ol' boy" organization might be coming.
Thanks again.
Don
Don, Thanks for your response! Personally, I'm not looking for recognition to feed ego. In fact, "getting ahead" has never been a priority of mine, but making a real difference is. Making sure my department and I are utilized to the max is important. I have no issue with working quietly behind the scenes to create the change I want to see, as long as that change happens. But I feel that successes should have natural consequences; that one should be able to build future success on past success ... for everyone's benefit.
In the situation described earlier, I believe the challenges I faced are predictable consequences of the way today's constantly changing companies operate. (Unfortunately, I became so emotionally close to the issue that I couldn't see a solution within that environment.) I don't know if I can succinctly describe my personal experience and observations, but I'll try because I know others face similar battles.
Over a number of years with a single company, I'd created numerous successes within my area of influence through problem-solving, consensus-building and hard work. But often very real problems were created in areas just beyond my reach. Frequently this type of problem was caused by unintentional short-sightedness of leaders who were seeking to make a name for themselves, but who, unfortunately, didn't consider the long-term best interests of the company. As a result, change was often superficial while on-going problems were created. And when leaders who implemented these “solutions” left the company, the problems remained.
I wanted to correct these problems affecting my division. Because of continual management turnover and structure changes within today's companies, however,(ie., the morphing lines of business units) my efforts to gain support based on past success were thwarted. These two factors had effectively erased corporate memory of my track record.
In one example that seems like it's out of a soap opera, the buy-in I gained from a vice president who knew my reputation vanished along with him when he took another position within a different business unit. His replacement needed to find a new manager for my division, but was determined to look outside the company without considering internal candidates. The circle of influence created by my successes extended to the heads of other divisions who knew my reputation, but not to my new supervisor who had her own agenda. She, in turn, was promoted within three months and took on another functional department which became her focus. (Other managers had been transferred or fired in just as rapid a succession, creating a cycle which seriously weakened the division).
So this is my dilemma as a “quiet” leader: although I've a history that should work for me and although I'm an advocate for meaningful change, the system didn't work for me. Still, I want to make a difference. Not there, but in another organization. But I need to find a way to avoid the trap described here.
Don, Sorry to post a novel here! I didn't describe the sitation very well the first time, so I over-compensated!
Post a Comment